• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      An apocalyptic rabbi who’s had unfathomable violence done in his name? Yeah hey, thanks for the ‘be nice to each other’ rhetoric, but half the people spreading that message brought not peace but a sword.

      And as a queer American I can attest his fanboys aren’t exactly polite on their own turf.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not even the most popular prophet from an Abrahamic religion. Second rate at best and losing to a war mongering pedophile at that.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      His hands are typically displayed stretched out to the sides, not down.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Politicians and kings rarely do something they weren’t forced to, and inventors are rarely without competition, so I take issue with most of the responses here.

    Instead, I’ll go with naval officer Vasily Arkhipov, who, if he had decided to agree with the normal officers of the submarine he happened to be on, would have started a hot Cold War on 27 October, 1962.

    Then again, there was a separate, slightly less severe close call the same day, so if you butterfly that who knows what else happens. It was a crazy time where few understood nuclear diplomacy and cold warfare, but nukes were ubiquitous, and were being treated like normal weapons. We got lucky.

  • schmorp@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Nobody, I think this is an insane question.

    So many different people had small impacts on humanity, most of it somewhat regional. Most of the heroes I could think of in Western countries will have had a very limited impact on Eastern history, and vice versa. Also, I am very sure nobody had only positive impact.

    Another problem: not everybody will rate a certain impact equally as positive.

    I’d suggest to remove focus and attention from god- or hero-like figures and shift it towards improvements won by community action.

    • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      from god- or hero-like figures

      The fact that that was what you thought the question was about is quite telling

    • Balinares@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t know why you are getting downvoted. This is a very valid and interesting point. Durable improvements are systemic, not individual, and the drive to look for heroes leads to nasty places.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Dude it’s a fun question from the sorts of who is stronger Superman or Goku. But even outside of that - it’s hard to deny that some individuals had more impact on the course of our society than others.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Yeah, there’s some variance, but I’d argue it’s actually pretty small. I’m trying to figure out who I’d choose, but it’s hard, because usually there’s a lot of redundancy even when it comes to kings and generals, and nothings lasts more than a couple centuries or so on pure momentum. When archeologists excavate a place like Rome, without writing it’s hard to even distinguish leaders. Rather, you can see trends smoothly changing over time, usually in response to something obvious like supply chain issues.

            You can also see this if you look at the stories of today’s great successes, and then compare them to the stories of people they would have started alongside. There was a lot of online stores in 2000, and one was bound to become Amazon. Amazon itself apparently was the first to allow negative book reviews on it’s storefront, and that helped it through the lean years. That meeting could easily have gone a different way, and then it would have been someone else.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              I gave you a good example in another reply. But we can also go deeper - Mohamed, with his freestyle jam on bible, to this day has rather big influence on society. It’s a rather strange and honestly depressing perspective to deny individuals any role in history.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Uh, so administrative question, do we really want to split this across seperate threads? I’m going to suggest you add Mohamed and the futility of existing without individual influence in your response over there (non-federated link, AFAIK Lemmy can’t do comments any other way).

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Who ever started the whole enlightenment thing, with the idea that there is no god and we are responsible for our self.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You know, from what I’ve read about it, it wasn’t one specific person, and it seems highly likely there were others doing the same thing earlier, but they just couldn’t take root for whatever reason.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        What do you mean? It’s always a specific person or a specific small group that comes up with ideas that are later popularized. Like you can pinpoint evolution theory to a small group of biologists with Darwin and Huxley at their forefront.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          So as you might be aware, you’ve actually chosen an example with 2 simultaneous inventors. Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the same idea at the same time, actually sent Darwin a letter about it before anything was published, and was credited for it. To be fair, they had similar backgrounds, and like you say were a small group. However, there’s plenty of inventions of the same thing separated across lots of time and space. Writing was invented several times is fairly isolated civilisations, and Gaussian elimination bears a German man’s name, and was thought to be fairly new, but can be found in ancient Chinese works as well.

          Who started the enlightenment? Voltaire is often on people’s lips, but if it wasn’t for the French revolution in his area just a few decades after his death, and which made him a sort of saint, he would have a much smaller profile. Meanwhile, if you go back further there’s someone advocating some enlightenment-ish idea recorded from probably every century. Famous names taper off towards the middle ages in Europe, but then so does the record in general, and Arabs like Avicenna or Al-Ma’ari pick up the slack.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            But every time writing was invented it had to be invented by a specific dude or a small group of dudes. It did not just come to be out of thin air, someone had to invent it and someone had to popularize it. And so with enlightenment - someone (maybe we don’t even know her name) has to come up with an idea and others, whose names we know have to popularize it.

            I get that you are saying that it might have been another person (or small group), sure - but in the end it has to be someone.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Okay, well, sure. Even if it’s inevitably someone, there is an individual or individuals that it turns out to be in the end. I think it would be a large group for the Enlightenment, even if you remove the forgotten advocates of it, but I guess that’s a nitpick. I’m a huge fan of it too, pretty much every other good thing has been a product of it.

              On the subject of this way of viewing history, which came up in another place, yeah, it could be depressing, but it depends on how you look at it. Schopenhauer said we’re almost powerless and it’s awful, Nietzsche said we are and it’s great. They were often speaking in more cosmic terms, but I think it applies here. It’s also a lot less pressure, right? And, beyond that, I think it just fits the data really well.

              I think it’s important to note that what I’m talking about is a bit like statistical mechanics in physics (small, unpredictable events adding up to a more predictable whole), and statistical mechanical systems are often complex or non-deterministic. I don’t think without heroes human society is actually much diminished; or are our moral responsibilities within it.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                But without “heroes” who is doing the actual work? Like again: Darwin, Huxley and couple other dudes actually had to make observations, collect data, come up with an, at that time, absurd sounding idea and defend it against societal pressure. And you don’t think that they have influenced history and could be replaced by anyone else? I vehemently disagree that the data fits your perspective.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Sure, if Darwin had been hit by a horse-drawn bus, we’d still have evolution. And probably a YouTube short about “The sailor-naturalist who almost discovered evolution (but died)”. It would just be Wallace’s theory of natural selection. There you go, one data point.

                  I was going to bring up some less clear-cut examples, but I guess I should ask what your point is, because I feel like I’m missing something. I think Darwin was a cool guy, but I don’t think he was unexpected. Yeah, they did the work, but work is cheap, every peasant in history did work. Why should I care more about Darwin than the people who fed Darwin, and who were themselves (something like) inevitable?

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Who ever started the whole enlightenment

      Highly debatable, but one argument could be made for Sultan Mehmed II, which would be a fairly ironic person to give the award to.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Sultan Mehmed II

        That’s the dude who fought Dracula? Didn’t know he was involved with enlightenment any sources to read up on it?

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The argument is (though it’s certainly not a universally-agreed view) that the fall of Constantinople lead a lot of artists and scientists to flee from the city heading west, along with old texts. Which lead to an increased interest in their knowledge from the west, which is what triggered the Renaissance.

          Mehmed II was the Sultan responsible for the invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire and the siege of Constantinople. Hence, he’s the guy responsible for it, under this model.

  • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Fritz Haber, the Veritasium video about him is fascinating (The Man who Killed Milioms and Saved Bilions). He developed the chemical process to efficiently synthesize ammonia, one of the key discoveries that allowed mass adoption of fertilizers and the incredibly rapid growth of the human population in the 20th century (you could say that thanks to him, bilions of people could live and be fed by modern agriculture).

    Tragically, he also had a fundamental role in developing chemical weapons during WWI, although he belived their use would reduce the number of deaths as army would simply avoid gassed zones, so who knows if he really intended and believed in the milions of deaths he caused. Ironically, he also helped developing Zyklon B during the rise of nazism (while it was still used as a pesticide), but was quickly forced to flee from Germany because of jewish origin. Later, his last invention would be used to kill even more people.

      • anon6789@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s where I first heard about him. Thanks, Spotify. I’ve learned more about European history from Sabaton and Iron Maiden than I have from school.

        Someone else mention Borlaug in this thread, and it shows how no single person necessarily changed anything on their own, and how it’s difficult to put all the success as the result of a single person. Borlaug’s success was only possible by building on Haber’s work, just like Haber worked with Carl Bosch to accomplish what he did, and so on.

        Seven Billion Humans: The World Fritz Haber Made

        Haber therefore revolutionized the entire course of world history. The transformation of Asia and the emergence of China and India as giant, modern 21st-century global economies would never have been possible without Norman Borlaug’s miracle rice strains. But they could never have been grown had Haber not “extracted bread from air,” as his fellow Nobel laureate Max von Laue put it. Borlaug’s “miracle” strains of rice and grain require exceptionally vast inputs of the nitrate fertilizer that is still made from the process Fritz Haber discovered.

        These fertilizers also require enormous inputs of oil. This means the dream of an oil-free world can never happen. Even if eternal, ever-renewable free energy could be harnessed from the sun or the cosmic currents of space, a world of seven billion people would still be desperately dependent on oil to make the nitrate fertilizer to grow the crops those people need to survive. The 21st century, like the 20th century, therefore, will still be Fritz Haber’s world.